• Users Online: 333
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

 
Table of Contents
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 89-97

Surgical site infections in solid organ transplant recipients: Expert group opinion for prophylaxis and management in South Asia


1 Department of Transplant Surgery, University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics, Iowa, USA
2 Department of Renal Transplant Surgery, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India
3 Department of Nephrology and Renal Transplant Medicine, Medanta Kidney and Urology Institute, Gurugram, Haryana, India

Date of Submission01-Oct-2021
Date of Acceptance24-Feb-2022
Date of Web Publication18-Oct-2022

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Ashish Sharma
Department of Renal Transplant Surgery, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh - 160 012
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijot.ijot_98_21

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Surgical site infections (SSIs) are defined as superficial infections, deep incisional infections, and organ/organ space infections that occur within 30 days of the surgical procedure or up to 90 days if a prosthetic implant has been used. Incidence of SSI is highest in recipients of small bowel transplant, followed by liver, pancreas, and kidney transplant. These are diagnosed by the presence of at least one of the following: purulent discharge from the wound, organism identified from the specimen obtained from the site with culture/nonculture-based methods, evidence of infection on gross/histopathological examination or on imaging, or a clinical diagnosis of SSI by a physician. The spectrum of organisms implicated in SSIs in solid organ transplant recipients is more diverse due to underlying end-stage organ failure, need for immunosuppression, prolonged hospitalization, colonization or active infection in the deceased organ donor, contamination during organ transportation/preservation. SSI in solid organ transplant can be prevented leading to hospital stay and cost of transplantation. Minimizing surgical operative time, sterile and appropriate surgical technique and antimicrobial prophylaxis, management of patient comorbidities as well as glucose and temperature regulation are important for prevention of SSI. This article discusses useful preventive strategies for preventing SSI such as preoperative bathing, use of appropriate preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, surgical site and hand preparation, use of wound protectors, drapes and gowns, incisional wound irrigation, adequate nutritional support, and use of perioperative oxygenation.

Keywords: Antimicrobial prophylaxis, renal transplantation, surgical site infections, wound protectors


How to cite this article:
Seth A, Sharma A, Gadde AB, Mandwar M, Bansal SB. Surgical site infections in solid organ transplant recipients: Expert group opinion for prophylaxis and management in South Asia. Indian J Transplant 2022;16, Suppl S1:89-97

How to cite this URL:
Seth A, Sharma A, Gadde AB, Mandwar M, Bansal SB. Surgical site infections in solid organ transplant recipients: Expert group opinion for prophylaxis and management in South Asia. Indian J Transplant [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Nov 27];16, Suppl S1:89-97. Available from: https://www.ijtonline.in/text.asp?2022/16/5/89/358668




  Introduction Top


Surgical site infections (SSIs) are defined as any infection of a surgical incision (superficial/deep) or involving an organ/organ space, occurring within 30 days of the surgical procedure or up to 90 days of deployment of a prosthetic implant.[1] The most common solid organ transplantation (SOT) recipients prone to get SSI are the patients undergoing small bowel/organ transplants followed by liver and pancreas transplant recipients.[2] Renal transplant (RT) recipients have the least incidence of SSI varying between 3% and 11%.[3],[4] However, the reported incidence is higher in South Asian countries, ranging from 8.6% to 26%.[5],[6]

The SOT recipients are highly susceptible to various microbiological infections due to multiple reasons. They are already immunocompromised because of underlying end-stage organ failure, prolonged hospital/intensive care unit (ICU) stay resulting in increased exposure to multidrug-resistant organisms. There could be preexisting infection in the donated organ, or could be acquired during organ retrieval, transportation, or preservation. Prior use of antibiotics in both donors and recipients also increases the chances of developing antibiotic resistance giving rise to multidrug-resistant infections. The Gram-positive bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, and Enterococcus) account for majority of SSI in RT patients, although the incidence of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) is rising.[7],[8]

SSI can impact the short-term patient and graft survival.[4],[9],[10],[11],[12] Therefore, it is crucial to know the risk factors to have preventive measures in place. Preexisting conditions such as diabetes mellitus, obesity, and previous surgeries in the recipient increase the susceptibility of recipients to SSI.[2] Institution of immunosuppression in the postoperative period also makes the recipients prone to infection. The use of blood products can directly transmit infectious agents. The presence of preexisting donor infection, acute graft rejection, delayed graft function, and surgical complications including hematomas are the other risk factors, contributing to SSI.

While there are many published manuscripts regarding SSI in transplant recipients, most have only detailed risk factors related to SSI. There are only a few good studies where outcomes have been compared after specific interventions. Many of the below mentioned guidelines have been adapted from studies done in patients undergoing general surgical procedures.[13] However, there is no reason not to believe that if something has worked in general surgical population, it is also going to work in transplant recipients.


  Clinical Presentation Top


Superficial infections are limited to skin and subcutaneous tissue, while deep SSI involves fascia/muscles. Organ space SSI is defined as infection deeper to fascia/muscle in any body part which was exposed during the operation. It should meet at least one of the following prerequisites: purulent discharge from the infected area, organism identified from the specimen obtained from the site of infection with culture or nonculture-based techniques, abscess/evidence of infection on gross or histopathological examination or on imaging, or clinical diagnosis of SSI by the treating physician.[1]


  Differential Diagnosis Top


Hematomas, seromas, urinary leak, biliary or pancreatic leak can mimic SSI, but careful clinical, laboratory testing will help confirm the diagnosis. Mild redness and stitch abscess do not qualify for SSI.


  Preventive Strategies Top


The appropriate management of comorbidities in the recipient such as diabetes mellitus and obesity decreases the risk of SSI. Standardizing and maintaining aseptic conditions in the operating theater, as well as minimizing the surgical operative time, are important in preventing SSI. Below are the infection control practices which are in practice to lower the incidence of SSI. The basis of many of these recommendations is from studies done in general surgical patients [Table 1].
Table 1: Summary of recommendations for prevention of surgical site infections in organ transplantation

Click here to view


Preoperative bathing

Preoperative whole-body bathing or showering on the day of surgery with soap is considered a good clinical practice. This makes the skin as clean as possible prior to surgery and reduces the bacterial load, especially at the site of incision. This can be done with plain soap or an antimicrobial soap. Preoperative showering with antiseptic agents is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin microflora,[14],[15],[16] but it is less clear whether this procedure lowers the incidence of SSIs.[15],[16] There is some evidence that having a bath with chlorhexidine gluconate does not reduce SSI rates as compared to bathing with a plain soap. In addition, the use of chlorhexidine may lead to allergic reactions, such as contact dermatitis, photosensitivity, and in rare cases, anaphylactic shock.[17]

Recommendation

It is suggested that patients should take a preoperative bath on the day of surgery with a plain soap.

Decolonization with mupirocin for the prevention of Gram-positive infections

S. aureus remains one of the most common causes of nosocomial infections. In recent years, there has been a rise in incidence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus leading to increased mortality and morbidity. It is the leading cause of postoperative skin and SSI, pneumonia, and catheter-related bacteremia, especially in hemodialysis population.[18],[19],[20],[21],[22] S. aureus nasal colonization has been reported as an independent risk factor for postliver transplant infections.[23]

Mupirocin nasal ointment is a safe, effective, and inexpensive option for eradicating carriage with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)/methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA). It is commonly prescribed as intranasal application twice daily for 5 days. Intranasal mupirocin in S. aureus carriers can reduce staphylococcal infections in surgical patients.[24] On the other hand, mupirocin resistance, recolonization, and intestinal MRSA carriage have also been reported.[25],[26] There is currently limited rigorous evidence available in transplant recipients to support screening of patients for nasal colonization for S. aureus.

Recommendation

Screening for Staphylococcal carrier status is currently not recommended, but decolonization with mupirocin ointment can be carried out in known nasal carriers who are undergoing surgery.

Preoperative surgical antibiotic prophylaxis

Preoperative administration of antibiotics has become the cornerstone to prevent the development of SSI.[27] The success of prophylaxis is determined by the adequacy of antibiotic concentration in the operative site at the beginning of the procedure.[28] Majority of transplant surgeries are categorized as clean or clean-contaminated surgeries, therefore, antibiotic prophylaxis will help in preventing SSI. The timing of administration of antibiotic for surgical prophylaxis should be within 120 min of placing the incision, and there is conflicting evidence about any greater benefit of administration closer than 120 min.[29] Due consideration should be given to the half-life of the antibiotic. Low tissue antibiotic concentration during wound closure increases the risk of SSI.[30],[31] The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists[27] advocates additional doses if the expected timing of the procedure exceeds two half-lives of the drug or in case of massive intraoperative blood loss. First-generation cephalosporins (like cefazolin) are recommended for surgical prophylaxis owing to better bioavailability, adequate coverage of organisms causing SSI in RT recipients, and minimal side effects. In units having a high incidence of infection by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, amikacin prophylaxis has been shown better results compared to cephalosporins in RT recipients. However, a higher rate of delayed graft function was associated with the use of amikacin as antimicrobial prophylaxis.[32] Choice of prophylactic antibiotic for patients undergoing deceased donor transplant with sepsis may be suited to the organism identified or as per the empirical choice of therapy decided according to local sensitivity pattern of the ICU.

As opposed to RT where cause of SSI is mostly Gram-positive organisms, SSIs in liver transplant are mostly caused by Gram-negative organisms. In pancreas and liver transplant, a broader coverage is required. Third-generation cephalosporins with ampicillin, ampicillin-sulbactam, or piperacillin-tazobactam are preferred as per IDSA guidelines.[27] Considering higher chances of candida sepsis, antifungal prophylaxis is also used in these surgeries.[27]

Vancomycin or clindamycin along with gentamycin may be used to replace cephalosporins in patients who are allergic to penicillin.

Recommendation

Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis should be administered within 120 min of planned incision. First-generation cephalosporins or amikacin may be used as antibiotic prophylaxis in RT patients.

Third-generation cephalosporin with ampicillin, ampicillin- sulbactam, or piperacillin-tazobactam for up to 48 h has been recommended for perioperative prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients.

Antifungals should be used routinely as part of perioperative prophylaxis in pancreatic transplant. Use in liver transplant recipients can be individualized as per risk, but most centers prefer to give it.

Antibiotic prophylaxis prolongation

There is a tendency for the physicians to continue the antibiotics in the postoperative period for varied reasons, which might not have any additional benefit but may lead to development of antimicrobial resistance.[33],[34] It has been shown that there is no difference in incidence of SSI in RT recipients, who receive single-dose or multidose antibiotic prophylaxis.[35] A deceased donor transplant from a patient with sepsis can be the exception. In liver and pancreatic transplant, antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for about 48 h. Antifungal prophylaxis may be extended in patients with enteric drainage, high model for end-stage liver disease score, vascular thrombosis, postperfusion pancreatitis, acute rejection, poor initial allograft function, anastomotic problems, need for hemodialysis, or laparotomy after transplantation.[27]

Recommendation

Antibiotic prophylaxis should not be routinely prolonged after 24–48 h after surgery.

Hair removal

Hair removal may be needed for adequate exposure, preoperative skin marking, and application of wound dressings. There is no benefit of depilation for preventing SSI. Shaving of skin with razors causes microscopic skin trauma and can increase risk of SSIs as compared to clipping/electric/chemical depilation, especially when done hours before the surgery.[36] There is no clear evidence on the exact timing of hair removal in the preoperative period, but most units do it in the recovery room just before the surgery.[37]

Recommendation

If hairs have to be removed, then it should be performed using hair clippers/electric depilator just before surgery.

Surgical site preparation

Preoperative treatment of skin around the site of surgical incision reduces the skin microbial load and helps prevent SSI. The most commonly used agents for surgical site preparation are chlorhexidine gluconate and povidone-iodine-based solutions.[38],[39],[40] Alcohol-based antiseptic solutions are more effective as compared to aqueous solutions in reducing the risk of SSIs, and chlorhexidine gluconate is better than povidone-iodine in preventing SSIs.[41],[42] Alcohol-based solutions should not be used on mucosal surfaces as they tend to cause irritation. These should also be allowed to dry completely before any use of diathermy as it may ignite with sparks generated by electrosurgical units.

Recommendation

Chlorhexidine gluconate alcohol-based antiseptic solutions should be used for surgical site skin preparation. The harmful effects of alcohol-based antiseptic solutions should be kept in mind.

Antimicrobial skin sealants

The cause of SSI is mainly thought to be bacteria residing on patient's skin.[43] There is no evidence that sterile antimicrobial cyanoacrylate-based skin sealants which remain in place and prevent the migration of flora from the surrounding skin help reduce SSI.

Recommendation

Antimicrobial skin sealants have not been shown to reduce rates of SSI and are not recommended.

Surgical hand preparation

Surgical hand preparation reduces transient and resident flora of the skin.[42] Nails should be kept short, and jewelry, artificial nails, or nail polish should be removed before surgical hand preparation. Surgical hand and forearm antisepsis can be performed using an antimicrobial soap for 2–5 min or alcohol-based hand rub (containing 60%–80% alcohol) for at least 1.5 min. Hands and forearms should be dry before donning sterile gloves. Alcohol-based hand rub with additional antiseptic ingredients has been suggested to be more effective to reduce the growth of bacteria as compared with aqueous scrubs, but the evidence for same is not robust.[44]

Recommendation

Surgical hand preparation can be performed either by using an antimicrobial soap or alcohol-based hand rub.

Drapes and gowns

Sterile surgical drapes are used during surgery to maintain the sterility of environmental surfaces, equipment, and the patient's surroundings. Similarly, sterile surgical gowns are worn over the scrub suit of the operating team during surgical procedures to maintain a sterile surgical field and reduce the risk of the transmission of pathogens to both patients and staff.[45] During surgical procedures, the risk of pathogen transmission increases if the barrier materials become wet. Consequently, the multiple- or single-use materials of the drapes and gowns used in a surgical procedure should prevent the penetration of liquid. One can use disposable, nonwoven or sterile, reusable woven drapes and surgical gowns during surgical operations for the purpose of preventing SSIs. There is no role of plastic adhesive incise drapes with or without antimicrobial properties for the purpose of preventing SSIs.[46]

Recommendation

The use of either disposable, nonwoven or sterile, reusable woven drapes or surgical gowns during surgical operations is recommended. There is no role of plastic adhesive incise drapes to reduce the incidence of SSI.

Wound protector devices

Surgical wound protector devices help to better reinforce the aspects related to wound edge isolation. These new surgical devices comprise a nonadhesive plastic sheath attached to a single- or double-rubber ring that firmly secures the sheath to the wound edges. They facilitate the retraction of the incision during surgery without the need for additional mechanical retractors. The use of these wound protector devices reduced SSI in clean-contaminated, contaminated, and dirty abdominal surgical procedures for the purpose of reducing the rate of SSI.[47] However, wound protection devices are expensive but may provide benefit in contaminated procedures like urinary diversion along with RT or in a case of simultaneous kidney–pancreas transplant.

Recommendation

The use of wound protector devices is only recommended in contaminated procedures like urinary diversion along with RT or in a case of simultaneous kidney–pancreas transplant.

Irrigation of incisional wound

Irrigation of incisional wound by flow of warm physiologic saline across the surface of an open wound, with or without active additives, is a widely followed practice with up to 97% of surgeons reportedly using this practice.[48] It helps in wound hydration and removes tissue debris, surface bacteria, and body fluids. Irrigation with aqueous povidone-iodine solution or saline may be beneficial, but there is no advantage of adding antibiotics to irrigation fluid.[49]

Recommendation

Incisional wound irrigation can reduce SSIs and may be done with aqueous povidone-iodine solution or warm physiologic saline but not with antibiotic solution.

Prophylactic use of negative pressure wound therapy

Negative pressure wound therapy comprises a closed-system device connected to a vacuum pump, which maintains negative pressure on the wound surface. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy is used on primarily closed surgical incisions to prevent SSIs. The possible side effects include development of blisters[50] or maceration at the site of application. The use of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy in patients on primarily closed surgical incisions in high-risk wounds, may prevent SSIs, but there is currently no robust evidence for the same.[51]

Recommendation

The use of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy in RT patients on primarily closed surgical incisions in high-risk wounds awaits further evidence before routine use can be recommended.

Advanced dressing

The surgical wound is covered with a dressing which acts as a physical barrier to protect the wound from contamination from the external environment until the wound becomes impermeable to microorganisms. The dressing material also absorbs exudate from the wound and keeps it dry. Many advanced dressings such as hydrocolloid, hydroactive, silver-containing (metallic or ionic), and polyhexamethylene biguanide dressings are available but have not shown to be advantageous over standard dry absorbent dressings. Caution should be made while using silver-containing dressings, as in some patients, it can cause allergic reactions or skin irritations.[52]

Recommendation

Advanced dressing provides no benefit over a standard dressing for preventing SSIs of primarily closed surgical wounds.

Extending antimicrobial prophylaxis in the presence of a drain

Drains are placed to remove any fluid or blood collections after operation which may result in complications such as infections or mass affect. The use of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis in the presence of wound drain has not been shown to prevent SSI renal allograft recipients.[35] On the other hand, drains can cause seeding of bacteria along its track and lead to infection of the surgical wound. Hence, the drains should only be placed if clinically indicated and removed as early as possible. Nonjudicious usage of antibiotics can lead to Clostridium difficile infection, antimicrobial resistance, and fungal superinfections.[53],[54]

Recommendation

Increasing duration of antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended in the presence of a wound drain for the purpose of preventing SSI and drain should be removed as soon as possible.

Enhanced nutritional support

Nutritional status of a patient plays an integral part in recovery of patient. Malnutrition leads to delayed recovery, impaired immune response, higher infections, higher rates of morbidity and mortality, prolonged hospital stay, increased health-care costs, and a higher early readmission rate.[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60] Surgical stress and inflammation leads to a negative nitrogen balance. Early nutritional support can improve the outcome following major surgery and decrease the incidence of infectious complications in selected malnourished or severely injured patients.[55],[57],[59] Oral or enteral multiple nutrient-enhanced nutritional formulas can prevent SSI in this subgroup of patients.

Recommendation

Oral or enteral multiple nutrient-enhanced nutritional formulas should be administered for the purpose of preventing SSIs in severely malnourished patients.

Perioperative oxygenation

An optimized blood flow to the surgical incision reduced SSIs rates through the avoidance of hypothermia, hypoxia, and decreased perfusion.[61] Hemoglobin oxygen saturation should be at least 95% for prevention of SSIs.[62],[63] A reduction in rate of SSI in patients undergoing general anesthesia can be achieved by providing an 80% fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) during surgical procedures and in the immediate postoperative period for 2–6 h.

Recommendation

Keeping FiO2 of 80% during perioperative period can reduce the risk of SSI.

Body temperature: Normothermia

In the operating room, a cold environment and an esthetic-induced impairment of thermoregulatory can lead to hypothermia.[64],[65] Skin surface exposure during the perioperative period can increase heat loss. Published research has correlated unplanned perioperative hypothermia with impaired wound healing, adverse cardiac events, altered drug metabolism, and coagulopathies.[66],[67],[68] It is important to keep the patient's body warm in the operating room by using warming devices.

Recommendation

Hypothermia should be prevented in the operating room by using warming devices.

Guideline for perioperative blood glucose control

Surgical stress leads to increase in blood glucose levels and inhibition of insulin with release of catabolic hormones. There is a risk of hyperglycemia even in nondiabetic patients[69] which predisposes patients to SSI, whereas hypoglycemia is more life threatening and all care should to keep blood glucose above 80 mg/dl. There should be intensive perioperative blood glucose control for both diabetic and nondiabetic adult patients undergoing a surgical procedure which reduces the risk of SSI. Blood sugar monitoring can be performed every 4–6 h till the patient is on IV fluids and titrated as per sliding scale in patients with diabetes till subcutaneous/oral regimen are introduced. Patients undergoing pancreas transplant or those with labile hyperglycemia may require a more frequent monitoring of blood sugars. The American Diabetic Association recommends a target glucose level of 140–180 mg/dl in the majority of critically or noncritically ill patients admitted to Hospital, whereas, there is no published literature on transplant recipients 1dl in patients admitted to general medical-surgical wards and 140–180 mg/dl in majority of critically ill patients admitted to ICU.[70]

Recommendation

Hyperglycemia increases risk of SSI, and there should be an intensive perioperative control of blood glucose level.

Adequate circulating volume control: Normovolemia

Hypovolemia and fluid overload are both likely to have a poor clinical outcome in a surgical patient. Sufficient tissue oxygenation is essential for collagen synthesis and wound repair[71] and is improved by adequate arterial oxygenation. Ideally, perioperative fluid therapy prevents tissue hypoxia by maximizing the cardiac output and thus improving arterial oxygenation. Fluid overload results in lower arterial oxygen tension, whereas hypovolemia lowers arterial and tissue oxygenation by a reduction in cardiac output. However, there is no standardized method for assessment of volume status. Noninvasive parameters such as urinary output, serum markers, and invasive techniques such as cardiac output or cardiac index can be used to set a goal. It is important to have goal-directed fluid therapy intraoperatively which helps to maintain adequate tissue perfusion and reduce SSIs.[72] The frequency of monitoring of these parameters can be hourly in the early postoperative period and later can be increased as per the needs of the patient.

Recommendation

Goal-directed fluid therapy can help to reduce tissue SSIs.

Obesity

The World Health Organization defines overweight (25–29.9), obese (body mass index [BMI] 30–34.9), morbidly obese (BMI 35–39.9), and very morbidly obese (BMI ≥40).[73]

It has been shown that there is a graded increase in the frequency of SSI with higher BMI, from 8.5% among those with BMI 20–25 and rising to 40% in patients with BMI >40.[74] SSI has also been associated with a significant increase in the risk of renal allograft loss at 3 years (hazard ratio: 2.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.36–3.55). Similarly, a systematic review and meta-analysis has reported a higher risk of wound infection and dehiscence (respiratory rate = 3.13 and 4.85) in obese patients and concluded that end-stage renal disease patients with a BMI >30 preferably should lose weight prior to RT.[75] If this cannot be achieved with common measures, bariatric surgery could be considered in morbidly obese candidates prior to RT. There is some evidence that outcomes may improve with weight loss after bariatric surgery.[76] Robotic surgery has also been shown to reduce the incidence of SSI in obese patients in individual series, but larger experience is still awaited.[77] The perioperative dose should be weight based, particularly in obese patients (including cefazolin, which should be increased to 3 g when the patient's weight is over 120 kg.[27]

Recommendation

Morbid obese patients should be discouraged to proceed for transplant till the time they reduce their body weight. Benefit of robotic surgery in these situations awaits larger experience.

Sirolimus/everolimus

mTOR inhibitors have higher rates of wound healing complication events as compared to various other different maintenance immunosuppression.[78],[79] However, there is little evidence to suggest that a low dose mTOR inhibitor regimen along with low exposure calcineurin inhibitors has a higher incidence of wound healing problems as compared to a standard CNI-MPA regimen.[80],[81] Until more data are available, it is advisable to avoid mTOR inhibitors in obese patients and avoid the high dose regimens.

Recommendation

MTOR inhibitors should be avoided in the perioperative period as they impair wound healing.

Management of surgical site infections

Infected wounds should be opened, irrigated, debrided, and treated with basic wound care. A sterile aspiration or tissue should be obtained for culture to identify the organism and to decide regarding antibiotic strategy. Wound swab can be cultured of aspiration if biopsy is not feasible, but it has higher chances of polymicrobial contamination hence not preferred.

In larger wounds, or wounds in which frequent dressing change is not feasible, negative pressure wound therapy (vacuum dressing) can be used. In the case of organ space/deep-seated infections, source control is important. A percutaneous/operative drainage is necessary for infection control.

As opposed to immunocompetent patients, where a superficial SSI can be managed with only incision and drainage without antibiotics, SOT patients often need empirical followed by culture-based systemic antibiotic for infection control. Empiric treatment should be started using broad-spectrum antibiotics with coverage of Gram-positive cocci and considering type of transplant procedure, colonization status, and patient risk factors.[82] First-generation cephalosporins can be used. Border coverage for MRSA and MDROs is required for high-risk patients (recent hospitalization/antibiotic use, prior colonization, prolonged intubation, urological manipulation, history of recurrent urinary tract infections, etc.).[2]


  Conclusion Top


SSI is one of the preventable complications of transplant surgery which results in greater morbidity, mortality, and worse graft function. Basic general surgical preventive strategies must be adhered to for prevention of SSI. Choice of empirical antibiotics as part of prophylaxis and for treatment depends upon the type of transplant, colonization status, and local culture sensitivity data. More transplant-specific studies are needed for further improvisation in preventive and management strategies.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/training/2019/ssi-508.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Sep 20].  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Abbo LM, Grossi PA; AST ID Community of Practice. Surgical site infections: Guidelines from the American society of transplantation infectious diseases community of practice. Clin Transplant 2019;33:e13589.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Dantas SR, Kuboyama RH, Mazzali M, Moretti ML. Nosocomial infections in renal transplant patients: Risk factors and treatment implications associated with urinary tract and surgical site infections. J Hosp Infect 2006;63:117-23.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Humar A, Ramcharan T, Denny R, Gillingham KJ, Payne WD, Matas AJ. Are wound complications after a kidney transplant more common with modern immunosuppression? Transplantation 2001;72:1920-3.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Sharma KK, Ayyagiri A, Dhole TN, Prasad KN, Kishore J. Prevalence of infections in renal transplant recipients of north India. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2007;50:453-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Karunanayake LI, Harischandra PK, Rambukwella UB, Hapuarachchi CT, Tshokey T. Posttransplant urinary tract infections and surgical site infections among renal transplant recipients in a transplant unit in Sri Lanka. Indian J Transplant 2017;11:31.  Back to cited text no. 6
  [Full text]  
7.
Choi SU, Lee JH, Oh CK, Shin GT, Kim H, Kim SJ, et al. Clinical significance of prophylactic antibiotics in renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 2013;45:1392-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Menezes FG, Wey SB, Peres CA, Medina-Pestana JO, Camargo LF. Risk factors for surgical site infection in kidney transplant recipients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:771-3.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Everett JE, Wahoff DC, Statz C, Gillingham KJ, Gruessner A, Gruessner RW, et al. Characterization and impact of wound infection after pancreas transplantation. Arch Surg 1994;129:1310-6.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Mattner F, Fischer S, Weissbrodt H, Chaberny IF, Sohr D, Gottlieb J, et al. Post-operative nosocomial infections after lung and heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2007;26:241-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Hellinger WC, Crook JE, Heckman MG, Diehl NN, Shalev JA, Zubair AC, et al. Surgical site infection after liver transplantation: Risk factors and association with graft loss or death. Transplantation 2009;87:1387-93.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Loinaz C, Kato T, Nishida S, Weppler D, Levi D, Dowdy L, et al. Bacterial infections after intestine and multivisceral transplantation. The experience of the University of Miami (1994-2001). Hepatogastroenterology 2006;53:234-42.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Global Guidelines for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/global-guidelines-for-the-prevention-of-surgical-site-infection-2nd-ed. [Last acessed on 2021 Sep 27].  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Garibaldi RA. Prevention of intraoperative wound contamination with chlorhexidine shower and scrub. J Hosp Infect 1988;11 Suppl B: 5-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Kaiser AB, Kernodle DS, Barg NL, Petracek MR. Influence of preoperative showers on staphylococcal skin colonization: A comparative trial of antiseptic skin cleansers. Ann Thorac Surg 1988;45:35-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Seal LA, Paul-Cheadle D. A systems approach to preoperative surgical patient skin preparation. Am J Infect Control 2004;32:57-62.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Krautheim AB, Jermann TH, Bircher AJ. Chlorhexidine anaphylaxis: Case report and review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis 2004;50:113-6.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Kaplowitz LG, Comstock JA, Landwehr DM, Dalton HP, Mayhall CG. Prospective study of microbial colonization of the nose and skin and infection of the vascular access site in hemodialysis patients. J Clin Microbiol 1988;26:1257-62.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Kluytmans J, van Belkum A, Verbrugh H. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: Epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and associated risks. Clin Microbiol Rev 1997;10:505-20.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Kluytmans JA, Mouton JW, Ijzerman EP, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Maat AW, Wagenvoort JH, et al. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus as a major risk factor for wound infections after cardiac surgery. J Infect Dis 1995;171:216-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Yu VL, Goetz A, Wagener M, Smith PB, Rihs JD, Hanchett J, et al. Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage and infection in patients on hemodialysis. Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis. N Engl J Med 1986;315:91-6.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Yzerman EP, Boelens HA, Tjhie JH, Kluytmans JA, Mouton JW, Verbrugh HA. Delta APACHE II for predicting course and outcome of nosocomial Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and its relation to host defense. J Infect Dis 1996;173:914-9.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Bert F, Bellier C, Lassel L, Lefranc V, Durand F, Belghiti J, et al. Risk factors for Staphylococcus aureus infection in liver transplant recipients. Liver Transpl 2005;11:1093-9.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
van Rijen M, Bonten M, Wenzel R, Kluytmans J. Mupirocin ointment for preventing Staphylococcus aureus infections in nasal carriers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;(4):CD006216.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Henkel T, Finlay J. Emergence of resistance during mupirocin treatment: Is it a problem in clinical practice? J Chemother 1999;11:331-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Paterson DL, Rihs JD, Squier C, Gayowski T, Sagnimeni A, Singh N. Lack of efficacy of mupirocin in the prevention of infections with Staphylococcus aureus in liver transplant recipients and candidates. Transplantation 2003;75:194-8.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM, Perl TM, Auwaerter PG, Bolon MK, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2013;70:195-283.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Dellinger EP, Gross PA, Barrett TL, Krause PJ, Martone WJ, McGowan JE Jr., et al. Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. The Infectious Diseases Society of America. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:182-8.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
de Jonge SW, Gans SL, Atema JJ, Solomkin JS, Dellinger PE, Boermeester MA. Timing of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in 54,552 patients and the risk of surgical site infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e6903.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Goldmann DA, Hopkins CC, Karchmer AW, Abel RM, McEnany MT, Akins C, et al. Cephalothin prophylaxis in cardiac valve surgery. A prospective, double-blind comparison of two-day and six-day regimens. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1977;73:470-9.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Zelenitsky SA, Ariano RE, Harding GK, Silverman RE. Antibiotic pharmacodynamics in surgical prophylaxis: An association between intraoperative antibiotic concentrations and efficacy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002;46:3026-30.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Freire MP, Antonopoulos IM, Piovesan AC, Moura ML, de Paula FJ, Spadão F, et al. Amikacin prophylaxis and risk factors for surgical site infection after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2015;99:521-7.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Kobayashi M, Takesue Y, Kitagawa Y, Kusunoki M, Sumiyama Y. Antimicrobial prophylaxis and colon preparation for colorectal surgery: Results of a questionnaire survey of 721 certified institutions in Japan. Surg Today 2011;41:1363-9.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Bratzler DW, Houck PM, Richards C, Steele L, Dellinger EP, Fry DE, et al. Use of antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery: Baseline results from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Arch Surg 2005;140:174-82.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Orlando G, Manzia TM, Sorge R, Iaria G, Angelico R, Sforza D, et al. One-shot versus multidose perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis after kidney transplantation: A randomized, controlled clinical trial. Surgery 2015;157:104-10.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Tanner J, Norrie P, Melen K. Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(11):CD004122.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Alexander JW, Fischer JE, Boyajian M, Palmquist J, Morris MJ. The influence of hair-removal methods on wound infections. Arch Surg 1983;118:347-52.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Rodrigues AL, Simões Mde L. Incidence of surgical site infection with pre-operative skin preparation using 10% polyvidone-iodine and 0.5% chlorhexidine-alcohol. Rev Col Bras Cir 2013;40:443-8.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Sistla SC, Prabhu G, Sistla S, Sadasivan J. Minimizing wound contamination in a 'clean' surgery: Comparison of chlorhexidine-ethanol and povidone-iodine. Chemotherapy 2010;56:261-7.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Srinivas A, Kaman L, Raj P, Gautam V, Dahiya D, Singh G, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of chlorhexidine gluconate versus povidone iodine as preoperative skin preparation for the prevention of surgical site infections in clean-contaminated upper abdominal surgeries. Surg Today 2015;45:1378-84.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Paocharoen V, Mingmalairak C, Apisarnthanarak A. Comparison of surgical wound infection after preoperative skin preparation with 4% chlorhexidine [correction of chlohexidine] and povidone iodine: A prospective randomized trial. J Med Assoc Thai 2009;92:898-902.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Bibbo C, Patel DV, Gehrmann RM, Lin SS. Chlorhexidine provides superior skin decontamination in foot and ankle surgery: A prospective randomized study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;438:204-8.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) hospital infection control practices advisory committee. Am J Infect Control 1999;27:97-132.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Tanner J, Dumville JC, Norman G, Fortnam M. Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;2016:CD004288.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Rutala WA, Weber DJ. A review of single-use and reusable gowns and drapes in health care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:248-57.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Webster J, Alghamdi A. Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;2015:CD006353.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Anderson DJ, Podgorny K, Berríos-Torres SI, Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Greene L, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:605-27.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Whiteside OJ, Tytherleigh MG, Thrush S, Farouk R, Galland RB. Intra-operative peritoneal lavage – Who does it and why? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2005;87:255-8.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Papadakis M. Wound irrigation for preventing surgical site infections. World J Methodol 2021;11:222-7.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Howell RD, Hadley S, Strauss E, Pelham FR. Blister formation with negative pressure dressings after total knee arthroplasty. Curr Orthop Pract 2011;22:176-9.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Shrestha BM. Systematic review of the negative pressure wound therapy in kidney transplant recipients. World J Transplant 2016;6:767-73.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Dickinson Jennings C, Culver Clark R, Baker JW. A prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing 3 dressing types following sternotomy. Ostomy Wound Manage 2015;61:42-9.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Berliner SD, Burson LC, Lear PE. Use and abuse of intraperitoneal drains in colon surgery. Arch Surg 1964;89:686-9.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Smith SR, Connolly JC, Crane PW, Gilmore OJ. The effect of surgical drainage materials on colonic healing. Br J Surg 1982;69:153-5.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Culebras JM. Malnutrition in the twenty-first century: An epidemic affecting surgical outcome. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2013;14:237-43.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Mainous MR, Deitch EA. Nutrition and infection. Surg Clin North Am 1994;74:659-76.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Waitzberg DL, Ravacci GR, Raslan M. Hospital hyponutrition. Nutr Hosp 2011;26:254-64.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Studley HO. Percentage of weight loss: A basic indicator of surgical risk in patients with chronic peptic ulcer. 1936. Nutr Hosp 2001;16:141-3.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Culebras-Fernández JM, de Paz-Arias R, Jorquera-Plaza F, García de Lorenzo A. Nutrition in the surgical patient: Immunonutrition. Nutr Hosp 2001;16:67-77.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Fry DE. Fifty ways to cause surgical site infections. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2011;12:497-500.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Meyhoff CS, Wetterslev J, Jorgensen LN, Henneberg SW, Høgdall C, Lundvall L, et al. Effect of high perioperative oxygen fraction on surgical site infection and pulmonary complications after abdominal surgery: The PROXI randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2009;302:1543-50.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Owens P, McHugh S, Clarke-Moloney M, Healy D, Fitzpatrick F, McCormick P, et al. Improving surgical site infection prevention practices through a multifaceted educational intervention. Ir Med J 2015;108:78-81.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Leaper D, Burman-Roy S, Palanca A, Cullen K, Worster D, Gautam-Aitken E, et al. Prevention and treatment of surgical site infection: Summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 2008;337:a1924.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Sessler DI. Mild perioperative hypothermia. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1730-7.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Díaz M, Becker DE. Thermoregulation: Physiological and clinical considerations during sedation and general anesthesia. Anesth Prog 2010;57:25-32.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Sessler DI, Rubinstein EH, Moayeri A. Physiologic responses to mild perianesthetic hypothermia in humans. Anesthesiology 1991;75:594-610.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Rajagopalan S, Mascha E, Na J, Sessler DI. The effects of mild perioperative hypothermia on blood loss and transfusion requirement. Anesthesiology 2008;108:71-7.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Leslie K, Sessler DI, Bjorksten AR, Moayeri A. Mild hypothermia alters propofol pharmacokinetics and increases the duration of action of atracurium. Anesth Analg 1995;80:1007-14.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
McAnulty GR, Robertshaw HJ, Hall GM. Anaesthetic management of patients with diabetes mellitus. Br J Anaesth 2000;85:80-90.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
American Diabetes Association. 1. Improving care and promoting health in populations: Standards of medical care in diabetes-2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44:S7-14.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Kabon B, Akça O, Taguchi A, Nagele A, Jebadurai R, Arkilic CF, et al. Supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration does not reduce the risk of surgical wound infection. Anesth Analg 2005;101:1546-53.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Yuan J, Sun Y, Pan C, Li T. Goal-directed fluid therapy for reducing risk of surgical site infections following abdominal surgery – A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 2017;39:74-87.  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
Obesity: Preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 2000;894:i-xii, 1-253.  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.
Lynch RJ, Ranney DN, Shijie C, Lee DS, Samala N, Englesbe MJ. Obesity, surgical site infection, and outcome following renal transplantation. Ann Surg 2009;250:1014-20.  Back to cited text no. 74
    
75.
Lafranca JA, IJermans JN, Betjes MG, Dor FJ. Body mass index and outcome in renal transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med 2015;13:111.  Back to cited text no. 75
    
76.
Bilha SC, Nistor I, Nedelcu A, Kanbay M, Scripcariu V, Timofte D, et al. The effects of bariatric surgery on renal outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg 2018;28:3815-33.  Back to cited text no. 76
    
77.
Tzvetanov I, D'Amico G, Benedetti E. Robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: Our experience and literature review. Curr Transplant Rep 2015;2:122-6.  Back to cited text no. 77
    
78.
Flechner SM, Glyda M, Cockfield S, Grinyó J, Legendre CH, Russ G, et al. The ORION study: Comparison of two sirolimus-based regimens versus tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in renal allograft recipients. Am J Transplant 2011;11:1633-44.  Back to cited text no. 78
    
79.
Ekberg H, Bernasconi C, Nöldeke J, Yussim A, Mjörnstedt L, Erken U, et al. Cyclosporine, tacrolimus and sirolimus retain their distinct toxicity profiles despite low doses in the symphony study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010;25:2004-10.  Back to cited text no. 79
    
80.
Albano L, Berthoux F, Moal MC, Rostaing L, Legendre C, Genin R, et al. Incidence of delayed graft function and wound healing complications after deceased-donor kidney transplantation is not affected by de novo everolimus. Transplantation 2009;88:69-76.  Back to cited text no. 80
    
81.
Dantal J, Berthoux F, Moal MC, Rostaing L, Legendre C, Genin R, et al. Efficacy and safety of de novo or early everolimus with low cyclosporine in deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients at specified risk of delayed graft function: 12-month results of a randomized, multicenter trial. Transpl Int 2010;23:1084-93.  Back to cited text no. 81
    
82.
Aguado JM, Silva JT, Fernández-Ruiz M, Cordero E, Fortún J, Gudiol C, et al. Management of multidrug resistant gram-negative bacilli infections in solid organ transplant recipients: SET/GESITRA-SEIMC/REIPI recommendations. Transplant Rev (Orlando) 2018;32:36-57.  Back to cited text no. 82
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Clinical Present...
Differential Dia...
Preventive Strat...
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed282    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded49    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal